massless

Are You Experienced? Palin and Obama. A Comparison.

Y’all, circumstances have induced me to put my hand in the toilet. Now I'm posting about politics.
I'm so disappointed in myself. :( So...

Recently (and especially tonight) there'll be a lot of voices saying the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee has more relevant experience than the Democratic Presidential nominee regarding the executive offices they seek. Is this true? I wouldn't have thought so, but I've been very wrong about so many things that I realized I should spend some time trying to diminish my ignorance.

(I know it might seem that discussing Obama's experience in the context of Palin's is false equivalency. But a lot of people out there really think their qualifications for executive office are nearly equal. They're not crazy, they're putting forth some effort here, so it seems worth a second to see what this is about.)

The debate about who has more experience has included checklists. I started to cobble one together. It definitely could use some improvement...it's just a start.

	Barack Obama	Sarah Palin
Age	47	44
Religion	Christianity. (left Trinity United Church of Christ after condeming his pastor's inflammatory rhetoric, might now worship at Apostolic Church of God)	Christianity. (attends Juneau Christian Center, grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God)
Current job	Senator of Illinois	Governor of Alaska
Previous jobs	Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago (1985-1988); Summer law associate at Sidley & Austin (1989); Summer law associate at Hopkins & Sutter (1990); Director of Illinois Project Vote (1992); Associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland (1993-1996); Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School (1992-1996); Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School (1996-2004); Illinois State Senator (1997-2004)	Sports Reporter for KTUU-TV in Anchorage (?-1988); City Council member of Wasilla, AK (1992-1996); Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002)
Foreign policy experience	Has limited congressional work in foreign policy... He sponsored or introduced several bills with foreign policy implications, including: 109 S. 2125 - the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005; 110 S. 433 - the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007; 110 S.CON.RES. 25 - Condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society; 110S. 1430 - Iran Sanctions Enabling Act; --- and he's held an assignment on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during which he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa -- and he became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs, but this barely counts since he hasn't yet called it into session. (It's been stagnant a year!)	Almost none... though she is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. But according to Major General Craig E. Campbell, immediate commander of the Alaska National Guard, she hasn't yet played a role in any defense activities relating to the Guard but that she's "extremely responsive and smart" and in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder... [Associate Press cite]
Domestic policy experience	Experienced. Reformed ethics and health care laws in Chicago's South Side. Increased tax credits for low-income voters. Helped reform Chicago welfare. Promoted city-wide childcare subsidies. Supported loan reform before the mortgage meltdown. He was Chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee. Helped enact death penalty reforms for Illinois. Sponsored 131 bills since 2005 and has co-sponsored 619 bills during that time.	Experienced. In charge of the Wasilla Police Department and Public Works. Cut her own salary while cutting property taxes. Secured $27 million in earmarked funds for Wasilla. Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (Resigned in protest over the ethics violations of colleagues.) Helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits. Signed into law the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). Signed into law a $6.6 billion operating budget for Alaska. The largest in that state's history.
Military experience	Never served.	Never served. (But her son is in an infantry brigade in the Army. And, as mentioned above, she is nominally the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard despite not doing any commanding yet.)
Education	College degree, law degree, and college professor and lecturer. Occidental college (1979-1981). Columbia University, B.A. in political science with a specialization in international relations (1981-1983). Harvard Law, J.D. and he graduated magna cum laude (1988-1991). While there he was President of the Harvard Law Review (1990). Taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years (1992-2004).	College degree. University of Idaho, degree in journalism, minor in political science (1987). (Previously attended Hawaii Pacific College for a semester and transferred in from North Idaho College.)
Hobbies	Basketball, teaching law, social work, writing (he published a memoir 3 years ago - cheeky!).	Hunting (she's a lifetime member of the NRA), ice fishing, riding snowmobiles, she's also run a marathon and owns a floatplane. (I'm very jealous of the floatplane. Wicked awesome.)

I started with the following premises. I intended them to be non-partisan, however I'm sure a bias has crept in here or there. I'm often a lazy thinker. I've been assuming that...

Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she can face management crises. To many, this is obvious. Just helping to raise five children (I assume Todd helps as well) is an amazing and inspiring feat of management, especially given that Mrs. Palin faced sexism in her professional life despite her talents, and given that one of her sons, Trig, is developmentally disabled. It is churlish and petty to argue that balancing motherhood and professional responsibilities as a public servant is a somehow meager task. How can we dismiss this honestly when viewing Ms. Palin's qualifications? You may disagree with some of her decisions, but she is definitely accomplished at being Governor and being a mother of a large family - which can suggest she has amazing personal discipline and that she could also possibly be excellent at managing other things.

Barack Obama has also demonstrated that he can face management crises. To many, this is obvious. Just studying for and passing the state bar, becoming a professor, guiding students on complex issues of law, volunteering as a social worker, introducing and supporting national legislation, helping raise two children (I assume Michelle helps as well) while running successive state and national campaigns is an amazing feat of management, especially given that he also had to face racism on many occasions. It is churlish and petty to argue that balancing fatherhood, academia, and professional responsibilities as a public servant is a somehow meager task. How can we dismiss this honestly when viewing Mr. Obama's qualifications? You may disagree with some of his decisions, but he is definitely accomplished as a student, a lawyer, a professor, a Senator, a presidential campaigner, and a father - which can suggest he has amazing personal discipline and that he could also possibly be excellent at managing other things.

Both candidates seem to possess character traits suited to executive management based on the available evidence: they both can manage their time, their emotions, their employees, and their ambition. They both clearly have experience in delegating tasks and power. They both can argue and hold their own in political debates within government. They are both charismatic and attractive.

But there's this non-subtle difference in their pursuit of knowedge - I mean look at all that time Barack completely wasted (they might assume) in studying the law and in school and teaching advanced courses at the University of Chicago. What was that about?

This is the part where I get confused. Are we really doing this again as a country? Y'know, skimming the experience of people with advanced degrees and lifelong interests in academic study and snickering "they think they're so mighty pants" while concluding, well, their education is probably not important? Are we still highlighting skills in management and delegation while downplaying the totally different accomplishments of critical analysis and thinking?

The management experience is helpful stuff, but there's this difference that's compelling to me. Barack has had his ability to analyze critically rigorously tested and challenged for decades.

This isn't a subtle difference, is it? Really? Is experience in middle management all we're striving for in our potential Presidents? C'mon, everyone. Let's let some better light shine here.

To me the debate about experience weighs toward Mr. Obama not because Mrs. Palin is somehow incompetent (this is false and unfair) but because Mr. Obama has great (and greater) breadth and competency.

Just musing about political experience. Arguments about policy differences between them can go over there - you know - right over there, next door, on the many thousands of websites devoted to those arguments. That's not what this post was about. Don't argue about that shit here. I mean it.

posted at September 03, 2008, 12:46 PM 3 comments

A breakdown of what Viacom was granted and denied in the recent ruling in its case against YouTube.

Because I hadn't seen one yet, I thought I'd compile a small breakdown of what Viacom asked the court to order Google to reveal - along with some excerpts of the ruling.

The breakdown:

1) The source code for web search. Denied, protected.

Plaintiffs move jointly pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 to compel YouTube and Google to produce certain electronically stored information and documents, including a critical trade secret: the computer source code which controls both the YouTube.com search function and Google’s internet search tool "Google.com".

Plaintiffs argue that the best way to determine whether those denials are true is to compel production and examination of the search code. Nevertheless, YouTube and Google should not be made to place this vital asset in hazard merely to allay speculation. A plausible showing that YouTube and Google’s denials are false, and that the search function can and has been used to discriminate in favor of infringing content, should be required before disclosure of so valuable and vulnerable an asset is compelled.

2) The code behind YouTube's identification of infringing videos. Denied.

Plaintiffs also move to compel production of another undisputed trade secret, the computer source code for the newly invented "Video ID" program. Using that program, copyright owners may furnish YouTube with video reference samples, which YouTube will use to search for and locate video clips in its library which have characteristics sufficiently matching those of the samples as to suggest infringement.

The notion that examination of the source code might suggest how to make a better method of infringement detection is speculative. Considered against its value and secrecy, plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing of need for its disclosure.

3) Copies of all removed videos. Granted.

Plaintiffs seek copies of all videos that were once available for public viewing on YouTube.com but later removed for any reason, or such subsets as plaintiffs designate (Pls.’ Reply 41).

While the total number of removed videos is intimidating (millions, according to defendants), the burden of inspection and selection, leading to the ultimate identification of individual “works-in-suit”, is on the plaintiffs who say they can handle it electronically. Under the circumstances, the motion to compel production of copies of all removed videos is granted.

4) Logs data including the "Login ID" and the IP address for each view of a video on YouTube. Granted.

Defendants do not refute that the "login ID is an anonymous pseudonym that users create for themselves when they sign up with YouTube" which without more "cannot identify specific individuals" (Pls.’ Reply 44) , and Google has elsewhere stated:

We . . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot.

Google Software Engineer Alma Whitten, Are IP addresses personal?, GOOGLE PUBLIC POLICY BLOG (Feb. 22, 2008), http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-ip-addresses-personal.html (Wilkens Decl. Ex. M).

Therefore, the motion to compel production of all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website is granted.

5) Metadata for every YouTube video including titles, keywords, comments, flags, poster's username, and other administrative information. Denied.

No sufficiently compelling need is shown to justify the analysis of "millions of pieces of information" sought by this request, at least until the other disclosures have been utilized, and found to be so insufficient that this almost unlimited field should be further explored.

Therefore, the motion to compel production of all those data fields which defendants have agreed to produce for works-in-suit, for all videos that have been posted to the YouTube website is denied.

6) The schema for Google's advertising databases. Denied.

However, given that plaintiffs have already been promised the only relevant data in the database, they do not need its confidential schema (Huchital Decl. ¶ 8), which "itself provides a detailed to roadmap to how Google runs its advertising business" (id. ¶ 9), to show whether defendants were on notice that their advertising revenues were associated with infringing videos, or that defendants decline to exercise their claimed ability to prevent such associations.

7) The schema for Google Video's databases. Granted.

Plaintiffs argue that the schema for that database will reveal "The extent to which Defendants are aware of and can control infringements on Google Video" which "is in turn relevant to whether Defendants had 'reason to know' of infringements, or had the ability to control infringements, on YouTube, which they also own and which features similar content." Id. 52 (plaintiffs’ italics). That states a sufficiently plausible showing that the schema is relevant to require its disclosure, there being no assertion that it is confidential or unduly burdensome to produce. Therefore, the motion to compel production of the Google Video schema is granted.

8) Copies of all of the videos on YouTube marked "private". Denied.

Defendants are prohibited by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.) from disclosing to plaintiffs the private videos and the data which reveal their contents because ECPA § 2702(a)(2) requires that entities such as YouTube who provide "remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents" of any electronic communication stored on behalf of their subscribers and ECPA § 2702 contains no exception for disclosure of such communications pursuant to civil discovery requests.

8) All non-video data regarding videos on YouTube marked "private" including the number of times watched or embedded. Granted.

Plaintiffs need the requested non-content data so that they can properly argue their construction of the ECPA on the merits and have an opportunity to obtain discovery of allegedly infringing private videos claimed to be public.

There's some things I like about the ruling (of course Google's search source code shouldn't be handed to Viacom) but I'm sad about the concerns about release of user data being considered "speculative." Is this a legal definition separate from the normal usage of the word? Because I can show pretty easily that usernames are often not "anonymous pseudonyms" and that many people use their full names. Linking video habits to a specific person wouldn't be that hard, particularly for those who played by the rules and are content producers that use YouTube promotionally and used their full names and have public profiles linking to websites, blogs, etc.

I'm sad about the IP address arguments as well. I understand Google's in a tricky spot here but the argument they made that IP addresses are "in most cases" not identifiable has been conflated by the court to mean that IP data "cannot identify specific individuals." That's false. People hosting web sites from static IP addresses where they also use the internet (e.g. some small businesses) can be identified by their IP data. Because there's fewer of these cases means that the data can be handed over?

Also, getting all logs data just because a claimant suspects infringement seems too broad. Why not just number of times viewed during various time periods? Does this mean I should ask MTV Networks for demographic data they've collected for all of their content since they've used songs from one of the bands I've been in and I suspect they haven't told me about all the times it was used and aired? Was it just that one time on the Ashlee Simpson show? Really? How can I be sure unless they hand over all usage data, related or not? Also, I'd like all of their advertising data so I can see if I was treated fairly in terms of compensation. I would love that data! I promise I wouldn't use it as an advantage in creating a new business.

posted at July 03, 2008, 11:04 AM 3 comments

Leaving Google

How can I accurately summarize such a cardinal set of events? It may take me years.

An intense era of personal sacrifice and accomplishment is about to give way to something new. After about four and a half years at Google working with amazing people and ground-breaking products, I've decided that this Friday, June 20th, will be my last day at Google.

Describing the decision as difficult would be weak understatement. Google has been the most fun and fulfilling work experience I've ever had. I'm grateful for the opportunity I have been given. I have loved being at Google and I'm lucky to have helped build things that seem to be useful and fun.

Mostly, I will miss working with people whose skills I'll only achieve as aspirations. People like the Google Reader team members (and I'm including those volunteering their help) who are each incredibly, jaw-droppingly talented. They deserve all of Google's support and help. They take considerable risks personally and professionally and without their leadership and effort, Reader wouldn't exist.

My Dad and I have been talking about posts like these as part of the obsequies of leaving a job and about how to talk about the obvious bits often un-spoken e.g. difficult personal decisions or financial windfalls or wanderlust and desire. Yes, all of those apply here, too. Mainly though, I've often been frustratingly more curious than careful and this decision is made in the hope that I find a better balance.

You know... I really struggled with making the title of this post "Unsubscribed" but I've apparently managed to quell that impulse.

Here's some answers to questions that I suspect might be common.

What will you do next?
For my next trick, I will be thinking about what to do next.

What will happen to Reader?
Fewer bugs will be created as a result of my not coding. :) Seriously though, Mihai Parparita and Ben Darnell have always been the technical leads for Reader and each is a genius. My only (slight) concern is that this leaves a team smaller that's already small for the scale that Reader requires. But Reader's future is likely to be intense and I'm really excited to follow its development knowing what's ahead. More importantly, the team is happy to await my inevitable bug reports! (Update: "Happy" is a not entirely accurate way to express their feelings about that.)

Man, this seems abrupt. Is there a problem at Google? Dork fights?
Heh. No. Everything's ok. Don't go looking for conflict where none exists. I'm grateful to have been at Google.

Are you going to travel?
Not right away.

Are you going to make a film?
...

Are you going to be present online?
Sure. I'm still actively involved in various sharing services. I wonder if I should spend time doing a few more posts about things I learned at Google, like the previous post about my musing about first principles for building a feed reader? If, by some crazy chance, someone has a suggestion about they'd like to know more about, please let me know.

Thanks for listening. Reminder: you may want to move my feed out of your "googler" folder now.

posted at June 18, 2008, 7:32 AM 22 comments

Four Firsts for Feeds

For the last few years or so, I've been fortunate enough to have my day job involve thinking critically about reading feeds. As a result, I've been musing about first principles.

When Google Reader was first pitched, we had only one guiding principle for building software that would deal with feed reading and that's mostly worked well. But after years of development I think it'd be nice to have a more developed set of principles to help understand feed reading. I've had some in my head and while they're not perfect (not even close) our live experiment gathers a lot of supporting data so I've become more comfortable with sharing these thoughts. Maybe they're correct? Maybe they'll even be useful to someone? Dunno.

So here's my current Four Firsts for Feeds...

1. Feed reading is inherently polymorphic.
2. Attention data changes attention.
3. Reading styles for feeds are pre-established and generally inflexible.
4. Content that is perceived to be most valuable is not currently available in feeds.

And here's a little more detail about each one...

1. Feed reading is inherently polymorphic.

This is the half-baked line I used in the first meeting about Reader. I believed a feed reader's interface might have to be athletically flexible to match a wide variety of reading styles. At first I was thinking mainly about data types (e.g. calendars, photos, videos, news headlines, essays, polls, games) whose best presentations might have differing experiences. But obviously feed use is broader than content differences. For example, Reader's "frontend" currently delivers the following views of your data: an expanded view, a list view, a search results view, an all items view, an "only new items" view, an offline view, a "no-left-pane" view, Mobile-classic, Mobile-scrolling, Clips, Atom, JSON, Wii, Shared pages, an iGoogle Gadget, and rendering of video and audio. (Whew. Probably missing some.)

Based only partly on user growth after each view launched it's my opinion that Reader's frontend flexibility has been crucial to its success.

On Reader's launch I told a friend to "look at the URL" with the ridiculous hope that I could imply our forethought about delivering different views. (It was "google.com/reader/lens" and the specificity of the last word implied that there were other kinds of designs in the wings.) The point being is that we began Reader by thinking this flexibility was central to building it. If asked, I suppose I'd encourage feed reader developers to think about whether or not their own applications need to be as flexible.

2. Attention data changes attention.

This is already obvious to technologists interested in feeds. So for those who don't know... the kind of data that tracks what we pay attention to and how and why we paid attention to it is currently used by all kinds of media consumption but seems fundamental to feed reading. This information often changes how people read so what's important is that the person reading feeds can see this stuff to help refine their experience. Currently Reader shows unread counts, trends, and annotations but we still have a long way to go in getting all of this kind of information into your hands.

One of the most important developments for Reader has clearly been marking items as read when scrolling, most notably by using the scrollwheel of a mouse. (Dragging is imprecise.) Starring items has been a crucial part of the Reader experience as well. I'm noting this because having flexible and fast means to alter attention data has been crucial to many, many people.

Side note: One of Reader's usage growth spikes occurred after its Trends feature was released. Other little-known fact: Mihai Parparita engineered the entire feature himself in his spare time and we got design help from the wonderful people at MeasureMap that Google had recently acquired/conscripted/enslaved.

3. Reading styles for feeds are pre-established and generally inflexible.

On this point I'm relying on data that is attainable at Google because of size and market dominance as well as having routine user studies and follow-up. So because of this data I'm making an assertion that there is something inherently different about the inflexibility of feed reading styles than compared with other software. It's something borne out in every user test we've ever had and by Reader's development and seems worth academic inquiry at some point.*

People of all stripes including those who've used feed readers, those who haven't, as well as those who understand the underlying architecture and those who don't all seem to have a pre-determined reading style that they find incredibly difficult to change.

The persistence of inflexibility is a little strange. There are many times when people can adapt to software experiences that don't match their expectation so long as they're still strongly identified as useful. You can probably imagine some personal examples.

However, in Reader changing a reading style is often very difficult. People can see the usefulness of opposing views ("Oh, I can see how a list view makes sense") and not change whatsoever ("Yeah, I could NEVER EVER use that") Generally, I've come to believe that people will not use a feed reader if it does not exactly accommodate their reading style. I readily concede that inflexibility in reading styles may only be a problem local to Reader though I suspect a new feed reader may encounter the same behavior. This is possibly due to the ease of switching to services which highlight the specific style the user prefers. Subscription data is portable and there are many simple instructions on how to move from service to service.

Additionally, it's my suspicion that secondary markets for re-feeding may not encounter this limitation. If the emphasis is on communication or collaboration in a re-feeder then what's normative for consumption might (very happily) be unrelated to a person's feed reading style. Dunno yet. It's an exciting time to find out, though.

I'm really hoping that someday an ethnographer studies feed reading styles. There's something very interesting happening here.

4. Content that is perceived to be most valuable is not currently available in feeds.

This problem keeps me awake at nights.

In every user study involving people who've never used a feed reader the lack of full information for the feed they attempted to look at first was a big turnoff for them using a feed reader.

What concerns me is this: people often want the results of well-known media but much of this is still either firewalled or put behind partial feeds which make the feed reading experience less compelling generally. I can understand why publishers feel they should do this since the expenses for a lot of journalism and media creation aren't small and they can't perceive how this would help them make money. They need a solution to this right now - their industry is facing tough challenges.

I don't want the enterprise of efficient, elegant syndication on the web to sit on the sidelines while good resources in investigative journalism bleed out. (Seriously, it looks like they're bleeding out.) And the feed reading space is growing rapidly. There has to be a way for all of us in the feed community to help.


One view of Reader user growth from inception, anonymized. You shouldn't draw too much from this other than "oh, that space is still growing a lot."

5. Just one more thing

Just wanted to mention that none of the above principles explicitly mention using a social network to help filter feed information. It's obviously important. We've always thought so - Shellen especially - and so our earliest demos of Reader years ago all included sharing with friends. Maybe that should graduate to be a core principle of making feed-consumptive software. Five firsts?



* All of the following seem true generally but have been especially true for Google Reader:
- Many people need to see all of an item's content to determine whether to read it in a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people need to only be shown an item's title to determine whether to read it in a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require being able to see unread counts by source when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require sorting items by newest when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require sorting items by oldest when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require tagging of items when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require offline access when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require keyboard shortcuts when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require excellent mouse targets for common tasks when using a feed reader. If they can't they won't use it.

- Many people require content available on their phone via their feed reader. If they can't have it they won't use it.

posted at June 11, 2008, 10:02 AM 6 comments

Starred to Shared in Reader.

A couple of years ago we made an option in Reader to share tags. Back then, there wasn't yet a dedicated page to shared items, or a "Share" button, or services aggregating shared items. e.g. FriendFeed, Linkriver, RSSMeme, Readburner [about to re-launch]

Things are certainly different now. It's past time for me to use starring for a different non-public purpose. So this'll be the last item I share via starred items. I'll star this post in Reader to remind people that this'll be going away later this week...if you're reading this via my starred items and you're at all interested in the things I'm sharing - why not unsubscribe from the starred and subscribe to my shared feed?

Early adoption always seems to introduce a sort of Brownian motion, doesn't it? Sorry 'bout that.

Not everything's different now, of course. For example, my shared items page in Reader, as well as yours, looks similar to Dealership's page, doesn't it? Yeah, that. Well...we were pressed for time and inspiration at Reader when we made sharing live, however we're keen on updating that styling.

posted at March 25, 2008, 10:46 AM 1 comment

The streets of San Francisco and Fashionist.

Mai rules. Check these out.

The pictures below are from Mai's site, Fashionist. At Fashionist, she's been posting hundreds of photos of people she sees on San Francisco's streets and asks them what made 'em wear what they were wearing. I'm a heads-down kind of moron and I sometimes forget that our city has such a constant, interesting stream of styles whirling by.

I actually can't pick favorites. And the whole accomplishment is one item on a big list of things she can do that I couldn't even dream of doing (e.g. asking strangers to pose for a fashion site).

There's a ton of stuff up already. I recommend checking it out by clicking through these to see more details for each passer(s)by.


I know very little about bags. Accordingly, here's a picture of hers I really like...of a little bag.

posted at March 12, 2008, 5:12 AM 1 comment

I seem to have made a short film.

Later, when I've moved back to the topics of feeds, Google, and the birth of a software product, well this digression might seem a bit weird. But on my weeknights and a couple of weekends I made a short movie. A small, funny mystery running less than ten minutes.

It's about Lukas, a man who is having a day he'd probably rather forget. I'm sure you can sympathize...we've all been there, haven't we?...



Filmed using a Panasonic HD camera (if you like the tech details, it's the AG-HVX200) in a single location over the course of 3 weeks. Editing took around 4 days total. The script took 3 days to write which I did mainly while riding the shuttle to work. I read about cameras, lenses, and various guerilla-level introductions to filmmaking at the excellent HD for Indies blog.

I have a higher resolution QuickTime version available at http://massless.org/films/hung but it's still of small resolution even though its file size is around 60MB.

The film features songs by Saturday Looks Good To Me and Citizens Here and Abroad, and The Small Hours. Ok, I'm in two of those bands. But Saturday Looks Good To Me to is an amazing, gotta-love-em fever dream led by Fred Thomas that drive my hands to clap whenever I hear them and I believe they'd do the same for you if only you'd listen. So, go listen.

They're also about to tour in October with one of my favorites ever, The Blow, mainly comprised of Khaela Maricich, whose talent sparks my envy and devotion every few minutes as I press repeat. Details are on the SLGTM website.

Regarding filmmaking (and acting in particular): I think it's useful to know I'm generally ignorant about how this stuff works. I'm just glad I figured out how to remove the lens cap.

posted at September 17, 2007, 9:39 AM 17 comments

About Google Reader's Birth: Part 2.

This story isn't just about me. But for a long, bad while it was, as described in Part 1 of the lore of Google Reader's birth. This is Part 2, however, where smarter people help limit my ability to totally destroy a good idea...

Watching TV.

I placed some code on the Google intranet that was originally a feed parser in Javascript but that had mutated into an unholy ur-product. I wasn't concerned about code quality - it wouldn't ever be a real thing.

Besides, I knew that preparing for constructive iterative feedback on the not-really-a-parser project would take time and a lot of careful design and preperation and reflection.

"Lemme tell you why your thing sucks," Aaron Boodman helpfully offered before I'd barely begun.

Aaron and I sat near each other in Google, feet apart actually, and after seeing some early development he wanted to talk about the design I'd thrown together.

He let me know (I'm paraphrasing) that I was missing the big picture and that a reading tool would be more useful if its model started with the item (not the source) as a building block and allowed items to be interleaved and maybe even ranked and recommended to other people. Our conversation meandered into comparing certain views to television as TV channels are important but not as important to viewers as the shows themselves.

Aaron's a good coach. Not only did I buy into this model, I found his advocacy infectious. I added a feed reader as my 20% project later that day.

A speeding car without brakes.

With code quality reminiscent of Ariane 5, I strung together a prototype using Apache, MySQL, and PHP. (aka LAMP) Except I didn't use Linux. I had a Mac running Panther. So, technically it was PAMP.

Shellen and I met to review my progress. After seeing the something instead of a parser he swept us into a conference room and sketched user models and personas and lightspeed business analysis. "We'll need to get onto the release calendar," he remarked. "How's next Friday?"

I knew he was kidding. Especially funny was an appointment that floated onto my calendar to meet a team that was making a sort of homepage for Google. The agenda noted plans for actually launching the thingamajig.

At home the joke deflated. The appointment remained scheduled.

The Hudsucker Moxie.

All of the following is true. I can understand if you don't believe it.

The prototype wasn't well-defined, though it clearly had potential. Desperate for definition I decided to try something I'd half-remembered about the actor Jim Carrey. Something about getting out of L.A. and going to Las Vegas, searching deep within himself, and finding his first principles - whatever he was destined to express.

Ok, except I couldn't actually go to Vegas. I used the nearby conference room as a Vegas proxy and sketched madly on whiteboards, thinking deeply about feeds for days.

I arrived at a meeting with a simple pitch - a first principle for a feed reader. On a whiteboard I drew a circle, you know, like that Coen brothers movie. Beneath it I wrote the following:

Feed reading is inherently polymorphic.

Clumsily articulated, that phrase nevertheless became my focus. If true, it would follow that a feed reader's interface might have to be athletically flexible to match a wide variety of reading styles. I then drew spokes along the circle's edge to highlight various related but differing uses that Shellen and I had outlined over a series of intense discussions.

I heard the team's response as another Coen brothers reference. Simply: "Ok, then."

A ninja bowl filled with ninja sauce.

When bad software is made, ninja coders can hear it moving even while they're sleeping.

Steve Goldberg was working on the Google homepage and offered to help with finding ninja-level engineers. I asked how I should help. "Show 'em", he said. This meant the prototype resembled an abused puppy and that an innate sense of duty would compel expert coders to rescue it from its cruel master.

In Google when ninja-coding apprentices need to go to ninja school and ask a question that stymies the ninja instructors ... the board of supervisory ninjas will, when they need ultimate wisdom, ask the advice of Ben Darnell, Laurence Gonsalves, and Mihai Parparita. So I was shocked they expressed an interest in the project. I then discovered that Laurence had already begun a project that dealt with feeds and ranking items, like the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down feature in TiVo, I thought, "yikes, I just have a Atom parser in pancake clown makeup, what will he say about the prototype..."

When I showed them code for the prototype, I observed the same response. Each of them sagged in pain as if millions of variables cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

I will be forever grateful they believed the puppy could be saved. Serious plans appeared and real work could start, so with steely resolve ...

I fled the country.

End Part 2.

posted at May 21, 2007, 10:05 AM 5 comments